|
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Wow, get this much response over this over a defintion of a trophy, hopefully everyone gave their input to MNDNR for improving our fishery.
Definition of Trophy
1-A specimen or part, such as a lion's head, preserved as a token of a successful hunt
2 A memento, as of one's personal achievements
So a trophy is defined by a personnal sense of accomloshment, this goes along with Steve statement that catching a 45" fish from Tigercat, is the same accomplishement as a 50" from Mill Lacs. It is up the eye of the beholder. Yes this fish might night qualify as pesonnel trophy to some, but to others it does, and that is their view, no need to make them feel any less of their accomplishment, we should celebrate their accomplishment.
As a musky group we will never come to general opinion on definition of trophy unless we establish something along the lines of the P&Y or B&C club.
My definition of trophy would be in lines that pending the water you fish, is catching a fish the is the top 5% of the fishes potential for that body of water, for the avid angler. Thus a kid catching a 40" fish on Mill Lacs is still a trophy in his eyes and also would be considered a trophy by me for that person personnel accomplishment.
Troyz |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | One more thing:
This is not the first time this conversation has been had, it happens every day all around the world. The topic is just different.
Define a beautiful woman?
Very different if you live in Wisconsin, New York, Californian or heaven forbid TEXAS. This is going to sound sexist, but at Michigan Tech, when I started school there was a 6 to 1 guy / girl ratio, after a short time we created the Michigan Tech adjusted scale. A 10 on that scale was equal to a 6 or 7 on the Normal scale. Sounds pretty twisted, but we where a product of our environment.
Don’t even get me started talking about airbrushed magazine models, kind of hard for average America to stack up against that, but women sure try. Kind of sounds familiar!
Define a great car?
Again, Midwest = Corvette, California = Lamborghini, Germany=Mercedes or Porch
How about boats?
Everyone’s opinion is the same here on what makes a great boat, and nobody is socially driven to have one rig over another……..RIGHT?
You get my point!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks Mike, you hit it dead on.
In this case, though, if a little hard work is done, we can redirect that social 'more' into a bit more reasonable realm ALL the way across the board, leaving room for those who trophy hunt just big fish on big fish water, those who specialize on waters where a big fish definition is different than that of the trophy hunter, those who fish as recreation and do so mostly for enjoyment of the sport, those who hunt numbers because that's what they enjoy, and alot more.
Of course, this may be just the ticket for those who don't 'care' in the first place, but read every bit of information on Muskies they can get their hands on anyway.
This subject raised some eyebrows, upset a few folks, created several pathways for controversy, and generally indicated how skewed the interpretation of available data can really be when 'socialized'. That was EXACTLY my intent.
Most of the responses here missed the word I accented in the title...TRUE. Define that, please, in Muskie lore context...is it an adjective:
1. In accord with reality, fact, or truthfulness.
2. Unswervingly; exactly: The archer aimed true.
3. So as to conform to a type, standard, or pattern.
Or is it an adverb:
1. In accord with reality, fact, or truthfulness.
2. Unswervingly; exactly: The archer aimed true.
3. So as to conform to a type, standard, or pattern.
Or is it JUST number 3 of both, with the following quote indicating the possible pitfalls of that definition? I'd like to see it leaning more to number one, both adj. and adv.
Here's a quote that should help everyone see what this old 'devil's advocate' has been getting at the last few days:
Cognitive Processes, Social Mores, and the Accumulation of Data
Program Evaluation and the Status Quo
Nancy Cochran
Northwestern University
Distortion and selective disclosure limit data available to program evaluators, producing a bias that tends to maintain the status quo. Paradoxically, attempts to objectify, regulate, or depersonalize the production of data only increase the potential for distortion. A reliance on the data produced by science is not necessarily a solution. Social science tends to be a self-legitimizing specialty that forces our understanding of social situations into historically accepted categories and relationships without specifying methods for testing the validity of these findings. An awareness of status quo tendencies raises problems for evaluators interested in innovation and change.
Closest parallel I could find to what I see as the challenge here.
|
|
| |
|
| well...it's important to be careful when applying knowledge out of context from fields outside of one's area of expertise.
as a specialist in human behavior modification, let me assure everyone that people's behavior is generally based on their beliefs, and their beliefs respond poorly to facts. all the "ifs and buts, candy and nuts" from the hard-science types aside, people have an unrelenting ability to ignore objective truth in favor of what "feels" right to them.
the social definition of "trophy" will continue to "feel" a certain way to people regardless of what the facts say about local opportunity. an understanding of what this means on the application end of things goes way beyond a nice quote from the abstract of a tangentially related article. to change people's perceptual beliefs requires developing internal motivation in them to change those beliefs.
so ask yourself...how does one help to create the motivation in people to be open-minded to the possibility that local trophy sizes vary? especially in an information world that includes seeing pictures of bigger fish from other areas? (it's possible, but the answer to this question is important for shaping HOW to get there!)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bullseye, lambeau!
May not be my field of expertise, but I have a few semesters sociology and psychology under the old belt..required for my course of study and elective because I enjoyed it...yeah I know, I'm whacked. And the direct reference in the quote I used was posted as a parallel which I believe applies nicely to make the point.
By assisting in developing a database voluntarily (with, of course, proper incentive) provided by the very folks you are referring to. Images of the fish with each data entry, and as much data from each as the angler is willing to provide. NO incentive to exaggerate the fish's length or girth. Strong incentive to add as many 45" plus fish as one can catch in a year, and much much more we are looking into as we speak.
Most importantly, the database would indicate the watershed (not the lake or river unless volunteered) each fish was CPR'd from, the anglers home state, and more allowing for regional quantification.
Wouldn't be an overnight deal, that's for sure.
As you know very well, just getting folk's attention in the first place is a process, not an event. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Mike, I don't think changing OUR beliefs is the objective here -- it's changing the beliefs that we invoke on the new anglers to the sport, especially the younger folks. It's making sure that our personal bias remains personal, and doesn't cloud the perceptions of those who have yet to develop any expectations on their own.
Regardless of what MY opinion might be on what a " TRUE trophy" is, it's how I present myself to an angler looking for support, guidance, instruction, etc. that is important. If I see someone catch their first muskie, a 44" fish, from say.... Twin Valley, for example. I can say:
"WOW, NICE FISH! It took me three years before I caught one that big, and let me tell you, in a lake like this, in this part of the country man, they probably don't get much bigger than that. That ones FAT too! Look like you're ready for Canada!"
That's reality. I can also say:
"Nice fish. I wouldn't call it a trophy, like that 55"er so-and-so got. That thing could eat a fish like this!"
That's reality too. (well, ok maybe not the eating part)
But in leaving out the fact that 44" for that lake, or that half of the state for that matter, is on the upper end of what you might expect to catch, I've essentially diminished that accomplishment.
I'm not necessarily open minded. I'm not necessarily changing MY definition of a trophy, or how I feel about a particular size of fish. But two different ways of communicating to that angler what I feel to be accurate can have dramatically different results.
Not saying we should be awarding medals to the guy that goes to Vermillion for a week and catches a 35, but if the future of muskie fishing depends on a continual influx of new anglers, it behooves us to consider if what we are projecting out there represents reality or not, and if it serves to encourage others or discourage them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1290
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Skewing of the data, even if it is accurate data:
Catching up again with more great posts another thought occurred to me.
In the days of old, when fish were bonked and Lake X's weren't as prevelant as today, it was reasonably easy (ok it took a bit of work) to learn where one should go to catch a big muskie. Fish were caught, kept and used for publicity in most cases. People like me write books and prepare lists of histories big muskies, making the learning "where" easier.
Today, there is far more secrecy among muskie anglers. With far more anglers in the "game" many feel a need to keep quiet about where their fish was caught even though they have no problem showing pictures. In a few cases, Mille Lacs being the most obvious currently, just about everyone who muskie fishes seriously and are still breathing knows about it. Hence, the continued publicity of that one body of water is tremendously higher than any other. And therefore too is pressure. Because of the propensity to keep one's favorite water quiet, we don't know if there are other Mille Lac's out there or not, bigger or smaller in size!
I would venture to say, that with catch and release having been prevelant now for over 20 years, that there are many waterbodies out there that might compete with Mille Lacs if the number of "fish per acre of water caught" is the measuring stick. Doesn't necessarily have to be a huge body of water. Smaller waters would necessitate even tighter lips as a far more limited number of fish are available to be caught.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, that regardless of the size of the data set it is only as accurate as the input. I believe in the past and even more so lately, Lake X fish have been claimed as having been caught in Lake Y to throw people off the track. It has always been a problem in angler surveys and angler diaries as well.
Would what Steve proposes work? Might if “watersheds” were used rather than actual lakes, but even then some will be reluctant.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 47
| A mid 40's is a trophy to almost all anglers, just not musky anglers. It depends on who catches the fish. To shake off a mid 40's fish, well that would be the day I move on to bigger and better things. I personally think a 50" or bigger is a giant. But that is just my .02$. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 376
Location: Lake Vermilion Tower, MN | Holy smokes!,
Somebody is doing way to much thinking here. "It's just fishing man". 
Save all this "high brow" analysis for major world problems
and just go fishing.
Is it any wonder why so many non Muskie anglers use the "E" word when describing Muskie anglers? Stop taking yourselves so seriously, you may find that you will enjoy it even more.
I'll take a 45"er any day, trophy or not.
"Ace" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
| It is interesting, Steve, that you bring incentive to the table in such a MASSIVE proportion, especially on a subject such as this. I'm interested, really, in what people would see as incentive enough to "register" their fish, in accordance with the "rules" whatever they may be. I"m also interested in seeing the proportion of the population that would be truthful about their catch, and those that are in debate of another's catch solely on where that catch is registered from.
The other thing I'd be interested in is how many of those guys would squeeze that extra half inch out, in order to stay with the current status quo. I think that the majority would be honest, and call their 42 a 42.
The last thing that would be interesting to me, is that there is still the chance that someone plays a "joke" on another, or goes a little overboard on what they register. That skews the data even further, particularly if you tag it by watershed. (this is something I've been subject to, by a well meaning, but completely misunderstanding personal joke) It would then basically invalidate any sort of real progress that might have been made.
Starting with incentive, however, what would happen? Are we talking about organizational recognition? Are bait manufacturers online with some sort of donation for say, every three fish logged by an individual? Are we, as a community, responsible for rewarding the truth and honesty of our fellow anglers, and trust that they are truthful and honest? Personally, the latter I don't see happening, we don't take someone at their word the way it is already, we've all seen this, seen, that, or have experienced it. We say that there is no way Hulbert shakes off 100s of 40" fish, and laugh at him about it. We also say, in the same sentence that we suppose a Guy could catch 100+ 40' fish a year.
There are too many doubting Thomas, the way I see it, to have a sort of internal database and list of recognition to be self policing. I see it being viable, and valuable, however, if we have the right sort of organizational efforts. I see the largest leap to overcome as the ability to get anglers to participate. I think that's one of the reasons you mention incentive. Historically, even creel surveys are inaccurate, that's just the nature of the beast. That's one major reason for my skepticism. If, however, we (again I use we, because it would be a community effort) are able to garnish active and truthful participation, I see it as being one of the most forward thinking, and very real efforts to qualify the fisheries based on region/watershed. Something that should be done, anyhow.
I guess, aside from my rambling, I can appreciate what has been said, by the detractors and the proponents. I think that its a valuable asset that can be had, if we work together on it, and with that said, would be very happy to get in on the ground floor of something such as this. I think that it would be valuable for coming generations, as well as current day use. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 144
Location: Green Bay, WI | I agree 100% with guideman. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Couple “Musky Book” is in the works.
Use the existing fish in the Lax contest as a starting point. If you don’t have enough data on the fish ask anglers to go in and modify or add data so water shed can be determined.
Possibly partner with Muskie Inc. existing giant data base of fish. If your looking for fish over 45 the fish that have all the data could maybe bee extracted. If the idea is to have pictures associated with “The Book” then this may not work. But going forward it may be easier if there is a partnership as members would only have register fish in one place.
These two existing data bases would instantly give “The Book” some history. I don’t know if that’s good or bad.
Just make sure the data base is searchable from all different angles. Also instant feed back would be cool. Say you register a 52 incher from the Upper Wisconsin River Basin. Once the fish is logged, you would get a report that tells you how that fish stacks up against other fish caught from the area, and so on. That would be pretty cool and also a pretty cool incentive.
Another incentive idea would be a pool of prizes where the more fish you enter the more chances you get, but size doesn't matter. There would be no incentive to lie about size other than to make the minimum, and I personnaly don't think that will be a problem.
Just some ideas.
Maybe this should be started as a different thread, as many people will pass this by purly because of the size.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | For anyone intersted here is what our Wisconisn Water Sheds look like. This is how they break the state down for management. I could go for logging a fish caught in a specific water shed even if it was a Lake X fish.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
(GeographicManagementUnits.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 GeographicManagementUnits.jpg (27KB - 169 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guideman and Bobski,
You need to read the thread a bit more carefully, a major portion of the discussion says exactly what you are saying, just not quite the same way. No offense.
Whooligan,
Serious effort, and a major undertaking yes. Possible, even probable a largely accurate database cold be put together, sure. The incentives would be considerable, or I wouldn't think it worth the effort.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 350
Location: WESTERN WI | Hmmm....
A True Trophy Musky would have to be a fish over 50 inches regardless of the body of water, I think that is very apparent in today's musky angling society. If a body of water can not produce a 50" fish, then it is not considered a true trophy fishery.
The first thing I think of when I hear or see a 49.5 caught is:
#1. Ugh, only 1/2 an inch away from a trophy fish
#2 At least there honest.
My .02
Edited by Got Esox? 2/16/2008 11:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | a zillion 50 inchers caught. I'd like to know where. Do the math! Take 100 years into a zillion and see what number you come up with. You really believe it after seeing the answer,oh well.
Edited by Don Pfeiffer 2/17/2008 7:33 AM
|
|
| |
